add_midi_note

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short: it does not say whether the item/track must pre-exist, what happens on invalid indices or pitch out of range, whether the change is undoable, or what the call returns. It only conveys timing units and value ranges, which is parameter information rather than behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a compact Args block, then a concrete example. Slightly redundant in restating start/length values inside the example, but every element is useful and the layout is easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the timing model well but omits the role of track_index/item_index/channel and says nothing about failure modes or return behavior. Adequate to make a first correct call, not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the four musically non-obvious parameters: pitch (0-127, 60 = middle C), velocity (1-127), start_beat (0 = first beat), and length_beats (0.25 = sixteenth, etc.). It leaves channel, item_index, and track_index undocumented, but those are relatively self-describing index/default fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Add a MIDI note to an item' with the key qualifier 'using musical timing (beats)'. That distinguishes it reasonably from related siblings like add_midi_notes_batch or set_midi_note, though the description never names those alternatives explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The worked 'four-on-the-floor kick' example implicitly shows usage context and expected input shape, which is helpful. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this single-note tool versus add_midi_notes_batch, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., a MIDI item must already exist at item_index).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.